Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court removed a caveat over three plots after finding the respondent should have pursued any estate claim through the administrator in a proper forum.
The application is time barred as it was filed after the expiry of the statutory 60-day period for challenging a caveat under the Law of Limitations Act; jurisprudence in Amos Gisunte Sererya v. Tarime District Council and Another applies.
Source excerpt
The application is time barred because it was filed after the expiry of the 60-day limitation period prescribed for challenging a caveat, as established in Amos Gisunte Sererya v Tarime District Council and Another.
Source excerpt
The High Court removed caveats lodged against the applicants’ land titles, finding their ownership had already been upheld in earlier unchallenged proceedings.
The High Court struck out a land application seeking removal of a caveat and declaratory relief, holding it was incompetent for non-joinder and incompatible prayers.
The High Court Land Division entered judgment by consent resolving a land ownership and transfer dispute over Plot No. 184 Mbezi Beach, with payment, caveat removal, and transfer terms agreed.
The High Court's Land Division removed a caveat over the applicant's land, finding he was not notified as required and the respondents failed to prove an interest.
The application was overtaken by events as the caveat in question had already expired by operation of law and thus had no legal effect.
Source excerpt
The High Court removed a caveat over land in Dar es Salaam, holding the respondent lacked standing because he was neither owner nor estate administrator.
The respondents, having been duly served, failed to appear and show cause as required by section 78(4) of The Land Registration Act. The applicant's affidavit and submissions established merit for removal of the caveat. The court is empowered to order removal ex-parte under the cited provision.
Source excerpt
Explore more
